Talk:Tube Challenge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Data issues

There are a number of issues with the data in this article such as

• Was Jenkins' record a class A or class B attempt?
• The date of Trafford & Trafford's record
• Whether Altman et al. completed the network
• The number of stations open on 30th July 1986 (272 or 273?)
• The number of stations open on March 16th 2000 (272 or 275?)

... and probably others.

Possibly back issues of what used to be called the Guiness Book of Records might also be a valuable source.

Jbom1 (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

... and did the Browns & Starkey visit Shoreditch by replacement bus - in which case their total should be 275 stations? I'm pretty sure they did, as Guiness would not have ratified the record otherwise.

Jbom1 (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking back on tubeforum posts from the time, they appear to be a bit, shall we say, evasive on this question - it looks to me like they missed Shoreditch out, and either privately negotiated with Guinness to change their stance on Shoreditch (given that it was unambiguously "permanently closed" at the time), or didn't mention Shoreditch at all in their submission and banked on them not noticing. Either way, no harm done - that detail hasn't affected the chronology of the record in any way. Slovakia (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted that Trafford & Trafford's record attempt is now dated as 20 May 1980

Jbom1 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Challenges

While the article itself has some notability for being a Guinness World Record category, what is the notability of the alternative challenges, and specifically the list of "major 'Zone 1 meet'"s? -Estesark (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It has become clearly the most popular form of participation in the tube challenge, and arguably how anyone now gets involved with the challenge nowadays. I agree that the notability of Alternative Challenges within Wikipedia's guidelines could be open to debate - but I'd highlight the inclusion of All Lines and Bottle records as most debatable. The Zone 1 Challenge is a major part of modern Tube Challenging and believe has it's place in this article. Scrxisi (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I will, at some point soon, go about overhauling the Alternative Challenges section here, as per the above. I think the article is at risk of becoming too niche... Scrxisi (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Proof of Ratified Times

While the historical data are compiled from archives of the Guinness Book of Records and Guinness World records, this record category does not appear every year and indeed the record is often broken more often than annually. In the absence of a truly official public domain database, copies of the certificates issued by Guinness Word Records are suggsted to be acceptable evidence.

The following links to the certificate for Martin Hazel, Sara Wearn (formally Huntington) and Andi James,s 08 July 2008 record:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1166635&l=d25b6cacb0&id=1326282208

and this links to the certificate for Andi James and Steven Ilhan's 24 July 2008 record:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1004609&l=cf2b18c0f2&id=1326282208

and this links to the certificate for Samantha Cawley's 4 December 2009 record:

http://www.scriv.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/gwr.jpg

and this links to the current record of Steve Wilson, Andi James and Martin Hazel, 14 December 2009

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/photo.php?pid=1107184&id=1326282208

If any other former record holder wish to add a citation please do.

Fictional Attempts

Below are a list of Fictional attempts that people have claimed to Broken The current Guinness World Record at that time should anybody see these on the main Record page should be deleted until proof has been given by either claimants.The current Official Guinness World Record of todays Date 18th August 2010 is by Martin Hazel,Steven Wilson and Andi James December 14th 2009

Martha Jackson & Tim Roberts 17h 11m 05s Chesham-Heathrow T5 October 29th 2009

Daniel McGee 16h 44m 10s Chesham-Heathrow T5 December 14th 2009

Fake User Name

As far as I can tell (from IP addresses) our friend Waveform (Daniel Magee) who constantly vandalises this page has made a WikiPedia user account called 'Geoftech' (One 'F') to make it look like it's me -> Geofftech (Two 'F's) that's made some recent edits on this page. Beware!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofftech (talk • contribs) 23:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Any claims made by Daniel McGee of any kind (because they are never true!)!

'Single Source' tag

I've added this tag because the article seems to rely almost entirely on self-published sources, blogs as sources, vimeo videos as sources... etc. It's patently obvious that this article is a massive attempt at self-congratulation by the fellows at 'tubeforum.co.uk'. We should be relying on GWR as a source, and none of this forum nonsense. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article itself cites multiple sources - there are at least ten different domains amongst the references. GWR alone would give very little information about the nature of the challenge itself. Only the current rules and current record would be available easily, to the best of my knowledge. It is possible to obtain only a partial reconstruction of the record's history from the back issues of the published book (this category did not appear every year and the record may also be broken more than once between issues). Clearly, if GWR maintained comprehensive and Openly available historical records, that would be a significant and valuable source. I do not think that there exists any adequately comprehensive source that could not be criticised as 'self-published sources, blogs as sources, vimeo videos as sources... etc.' Suggestions for possible additional sources will, I'm sure, be welcomed by those who occasionally maintain this article. Jbom1 (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources policy, I'm going to start removing statements that aren't backed up by reliable sources. tubeforum.co.uk is not a reliable source, non-peer reviewed, non-journalistic site that at best is a fansite for this competition. In no way is it official and in no way does it pass our reliable source policy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite on the contrary, tubeforum.co.uk is closer to a governing body than to a fansite. Do you really expect formal peer-review - this is hardly a subject covered by academic journals?

Jbom1 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I expect reliable sources, and tubeforum.co.uk is not a reliable source. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added the two tags I feel are most accurate. Sorry for the over-tagging, but the article's a bit of a mess at present. I'd welcome your help in finding sources in the media (eg metro.co.uk). I've found 6 or 7 already after only an hour of looking. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem here in that journalistic coverage of a subject like this is sporadic, sometimes superficial and not always accurate. While I agree that references to print media stories would in general enhance the article, it would be unrealistic to expect either comprehensive coverage or that a journalist writing a light-hearted piece against a deadline will get all the facts right. In fact, my contention would be that the information on tubeforum.co.uk is more accurate than that in any alternative source for this subject. Information is seen immediately by a substantial community of domain experts and dubious material is identified as such. Put it another way, I'd trust a community of pedantic people who take Tube Challenging seriously to get the basic facts right.

That said, I certainly accept that there is material in the article that's probably not appropriate for an encyclopaedia and have no problem with its removal. However, to take one example, to add "citation needed" to statments about the rules of the Challenge while at the same time removing the reference to those rules is hardly productive.

I will attempt to restore the article to a reasonable state. Jbom1 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be straight with you on one of my major concerns: as you're from the website in question, I'm worried that you're using our project to try and set up Tube Challenge as the 'governing body' for the challenge, when in actuality there is no governing body. The 'rules' set by tubeforum are rules which no-one has to follow. The only applicable 'rules' are the ones accepted by Guinness World Records, and according to the T&C of their competitions, a certificate is not proof of a record being set. Only their database is proof of the record being set. To summarise:

1. Tubeforum is not a reliable source for historical results, as there's no oversight or objective proof that the results on the site are real. The owners of the site may well have made them up, and even if he hasn't it's still original research, which is not appropriate for our site.
2. In the event of a lack of reliable sources, the correct recourse is not to place poor-quality sources in their place. The correct recourse is to leave out the unsourced information until someone writes a journalistic piece, or even better, a book, about it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I have never attempted the Challenge, nor am I closely associated with any of the relevant parties. I am indeed a member of the forum referred to, but do not in any way represent it. In fact, I'm an academic who has been a 'fan' of Tube Challenging for a number of years. I have done some of the alternative challenges and have met a number of former record holders. I don't have any vested interest in who holds the record. I would welcome the public release of GWR's full database, but so far as I know it is only possible to obtain from them the current record. Regarding record claims, I personally accept the issue of a GWR certificate as adequate proof. There has been a debate on this subject on this talk page, and I see little point in revisiting it. Most of what I write professionally is peer reviewed, and I myself peer review tens of articles every year.

Regarding the data in the article, records from the 1960's were held by the London Underground Roving Society, who acted as a de facto governing body. There are some issues relating to identifying class A and class B records. Those listed here have their origins in a scan through back issues of the old Guinness Book of Records (not by me), but I doubt that they are complete. There are suspiciously long gaps in the 1970's.

In fact, online databases can be and are reliable and citable sources (for example in bioinformatics, where most of the data will never make it onto paper). Journalistic pieces and books may be backed up by the publisher's reputation, but in practice frequently contain mistakes. The point is that the reliability of sources is domain-dependent.

Jbom1 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Jbom1 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Jbom, I appreciate and understand what you're saying, but it doesn't matter whether or not GWR release their database - tubechallenge.co.uk is still not an acceptable source, and neither is anyone's original research. Regarding record claims, the certificates clearly state that they do not denote an entry in GWR - therefore they're not an official record. There has been no debate on this talk page a t all, simply a note posted several months ago by an editor with practically no knowledge or interest in our project.

Regarding the data in the article, the "London Underground Roving Society" were not a governing body of any sort. They were simply the most vocal club at the time, as tubechallenge is the most vocal club now. I'm going to re-write the article, remove everything unsourced or inadequately sourced, and invite further comment from the community at large. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hobnobbiscuits (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten

I've rewritten the article, removing the unsourced sections. While the information may be true, it's not verifiable: this poses a problem. If you could notify the chaps over at tubeforum.co.uk that there's no hard feelings, and we'd appreciate their help, that'd be grand. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted said comments about myself (Profilic runner of the underground etc.) as i feel that is unfair to myself and you should not have put them on this talk page.Further more either add the citation needed or delete said Guinness World Record from the article citation needed.To ask for a citation again when 1 was given and pointed out copies of Certificate are acceptable and again having to prove said Record is quite frankly upsetting to myself and to another former record holder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palkanetoijala (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 September 2010

I don't feel it's unfair to yourself, as you describe yourself on your twitter page as "the most profilic runner of the london underground", and I feel it's a fair comment given the circumstances. As to the current record holder, I don't have access to the GWR site, so I can't see who the current record holder is, and thus can't add the citation needed. Unfortunately, copies of any certificate from GWR aren't acceptable - if you read the small print at the bottom of the certificate, it doesn't certify an entry in GWR. What we need is a link to the official record on their site, even if it requires a password login - or ideally, a newspaper report saying that Mr/Mrs X took the record. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No matter, I've found a source that states you held the record three times! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I happy that u have found a verible source and that Whatever shape or form this page is now or in future is good.In reference to Most profilic runner i was refering to the comment made after it which is deleted as i believe it is most unfair to judge a person opinions on the subject.I also mention that Hakan Wolge has a mention in the Guinness Book 2008 perhaps you like to add to page for future reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palkanetoijala (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the book so I can't format the reference correctly. In relation to the comment I made - perhaps you shouldn't put it on the internet if you don't want to be quoted on it? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I refer the Previous user to this comment " i,d say he has got a Massive Conflict of interest"That is a opinion seeing as you have never met me have no idea of whom i am you cant judge my opinions on the subject and should apologise for said comment.I have a great diffuculty with the english language but am probably more qualified to speak about it than urself.In fact if you have asked i have many Newspaper clipings which could have enhanced this article(seeing as newspapers are verifiable sources)On a last note i do not understand Wikipedia Guidelines on information and sources and will not furhter future contribute to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palkanetoijala (talk • contribs) 11:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this has got out of hand a tad. As the admin of tubeforum.co.uk let me add some perspective. Firstly, the edits made here were most certainly not on behalf of the forum however the admins of the forum are happy to help the Wikipedia editors where requested. We have no desire as a website to become the defacto administrative authority behind the world record - that is left to GWR and correctly so. The website collates information on the rules and historical record holders. Why do we do this - because Guiness doesn't. Guiness have so many records that they can not print each of them in their book or display them on the website. The forum part of the website brings like minded people together. I agree - the forum is not a reliable source.

Secondly, the issue with the GWR certificates. A certificate demonstrates that the holder has at the date of the certificate held the world record by virtue of an entry in the GWR database. The certificates can only be valid on the date of issue as a new world record holder could be entered on the database the following day. In effect, the certificates hold no present, only historical value hence the Ts and Cs. Hence the certificate does not confirm a (current) entry on the GWR database. I can confirm this is true as I have had this point verbally confirmed to me by GWR.

Thirdly, whilst I agree that a website forum is not a reliable source, knowledge of a subject most certainly is. The articles that will shortly appear on tubeforum.co.uk will be peer reviewed by people knowledgable in the subject - this is no different to say, a medical journal (which I understand is a reliable source) If there are errors or dubious content then it will be removed from our articles. An article in a newspaper is only original research that has been published. Very few newspaper articles are actively verified before being published. The form of the published matter should not be the issue. I say this objectively in the spirit of co-operation.

Finally, Tube Challenging and the alternative challenges are not 'Games' they are more akin to a sports or endurance contests. The difference is simple, you do not play the Tube Challenge, you attempt it. Moleymoley (talk)

To re-iterate: tubechallenging is not a game - it does not have players. You would not suggest that the Marathon is a game. To suggest so is insulting. Moleymoley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

It's really hard to improve this when Cavalry|Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry keeps vandalising the page. If he reads the comments above, we are on his side but we need time to improve things. Moleymoley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

I'm reading the comments above, but the old version isn't acceptable, sorry. This isn't up for discussion; it's already outlined in WP:RS, and we all have to follow it. tubeforum.co.uk is manifestly not a reliable source, however well-intentioned its users are. To quote the policy, "Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. " It goes on to suggest that some forums may, exceptionally, be regarded as sources, but this isn't the case here. By all means add information from the old version of the article, but don't do so unless it's reliably sourced. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got a question: If it's not a game - which I agree is a bit of an odd name for it - then what is it? A pastime? It's not a sport, because there's not a great deal of physical prowess or skill involved. It seems to me to fall under something mathematical - that the best route would get the best time. Although there'd be some running involved, there are obviously safety concerns in that it's a public network with tight turns and twisting tunnels - not to mention the lethal consequences of falling on to the line. Maybe we need a new infobox for world records... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"because there's not a greal deal of physical prowess or skill involved". Oh my... And at that point I have to interject, because it's now terribly evident that are you editing this article without having a full appreciation of the subject.

Firstly, there is a tremendous amount of physical prowess involved, namely - running. Becoming fitter is something that all challengers have had to be in recent times to enable them to get faster record times. I think you have fallen into the trap of many by just assuming that it's just "sitting on trains all day", which it is not - as there are many station-to-station runs to link you between lines to enable you to make your connections. Talk to my physiotherapist who nurses my ankle each time i come back from a run! or look at my credit card statement where I've bought professional running shoes from the Marathon store. All the challengers do this, as over the course of an average day you run at least 10km, and that does NOT include all the 'within station interchanges' running that you may do. Maintaining fitness is a key element to this challenge - I am writing this right now with sweat trickling down my back because I have just come back from running as part of my fitness regime to get me into good shape for my next attempt. If you read around any of the written reports that are online (I suggest you start at my webste for this www.geofftech.co.uk), or search for "Tube Challenge" videos on YouTube, then it will give you a further insight into this.

Secondly, the logistical side : the planning is a skill inself. Having an awareness of current working timetables, and a mathematical style brain that can take all this in, and - all too often - rework routes on the fly, cutting down on the amount of time that you stand arond waiting, whilst changing trains. The original article had a perfectly valid link likening it to the Travelling Sales problem - which it is, but .. well that got the chop, didn't it? A previous record holder Hakan, wrote a wonderful computer programme that would calculate shortest routes for you - something I am not capable of - thus demonstrating an amazing level of skill to possess to be able to do something like that. No skill involved? Hardly.

'The lethal consequences of falling onto the line' - that's... extremely amusing. Of all my time doing the tube challenge, running around and taking part in this event, and talking extensively to others that do it, no one - TFL included - have ever cited this as a concern. And it's not even come close to happening. Do you live in London, Ladies? Are you a regular tube passenger? It just compounds my theory that you have an idea in your mind of what you think this 'game' is like, and that it is far from the reality of those of us who know, because we actually undertake the challenge.

Shame then, that based on that you have the power to (seemingly petulantly) edit a page in such away that removed information that is educational, interesting and informing to those otherwise not in the know - something that to me, is what a good encyclopedia should be all about.

Geofftech (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

May i Suggest that somebody deletes the citations and fake user name and fake times as they are no longer relevant to the site.And if the history of the challenge gets deleted again i will remove my current record from this site.Palkanetoijala (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

November 8th after the Editing dispute has been resolved if the history of the challenge is not allowed when they are veriable sources researched from past Guinness book of records.Then the current record will be deleted from this site also.Palkanetoijala (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I can now personally confirm that apart from the Records recently all records prior to year 2002 have been covered in the Guinness Book of records usually on page 142 of each book year.And the Guinness World record database holds at least the previous 4 records hopefully this will applease the Wikipedia editor who constantly edits the page when he knows nothing i repeat the following no history allowed no current history will be displayed i will edit the change to this Current Record may be attained by Guinness book of Records as not willing to be published by holder.Palkanetoijala (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have changed i will allow the record time but i do not want my name published with this wikipedia page which quite frankly has been ruined by the constant interferance of Chase Me Ladies Im the Cavalry "I repeat do not put my name back on this page i will edit it off each time you do put back on"Plus if i break record again you can trust this i wont put it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palkanetoijala (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

New World Record

On Friday 27 May 2011, Steve Wilson and 1 other individual set a new record of 16 hours, 29 minutes and 13 seconds beating the previous time by 44 seconds.

It is confirmed on the Guiness details pages for those with open records but has not yet filtered through to the main website. It will appear here http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-5000/fastest-time-to-travel-to-all-london-underground-stations/ in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molecrochip (talk • contribs) 09:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

According to comments on the site, the other individual is Andi James - unfortunately, we'll have to keep it as Mark Gawley until the GWR site updates. Thanks for the notice, I'll keep checking over the next few days. The Cavalry (Message me) 03:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Guinness site will never update the information too much in love with Marc Gawley time despite me asking them many times to update their website i have given up!And the person who put dubious discuss reveal yourself and message me if you doubt it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.35.176 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 February 2012‎

Removing Andi James's name

Being a complete novice at this i can see the following problems

1. The article itself has become suspended with no 1 allowed to add too it or allowed to edit their name for example i know the record holder after speaking to him does not wish his name to be printed for example but wikipedia will not let him delete his own name how fair is that.?

2. I planned my own attempt and it was quite good but if i cant get it published in a book or a newspaper i cant publish it on wikipedia for example as it is not a veriable source despite the internet being 1 of the most veriable sources they are.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobnobbiscuits (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 November 2010

Wikipedia just echoes what's been written in reliable sources - if someone undertook a world record in their own name, and it was reported in the press and the Guinness Book of Records under that name, then they can expect to attract attention from it. Is there some angle I'm missing as to why Mr James wants his name removed from Wikipedia? Is the GBR entry factually incorrect?

And yes, if no reliable sources have covered your own world record attempt, then Wikipedia shouldn't mention it - see WP:RS for how this works, and why it's important. (Although a web page is easily verifiable, it's not necessarily reliable - the word of the Guinness Book of Records is worth a lot more than the word of a personal website.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

3. MR JAMES repeatedly asked for his own name to be taken off the website after the former history was taken out he believed no former history no current history should be displayed in his own words.Whilst it is diffucult to find each GUINNESS BOOK from years past and photocopy front page page which record is on and the quotations written about it he believed this was possible for a WIKIPEDIA EDITOR to ask for help or actually do it.On the subject is that acceptable a photocopy or link to the actual book and page record on.?and also i have found a link to a former record can someone see if acceptable under WIKIPDEIA guidelines.? http://212.148.84.116/buzzword2/pdf/dec08.pdfHobnobbiscuits (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, books are fine as sources: here's a guideline for using them as references. Feel free to quote any past winners which Guinness have covered, and let me know if you need any help. --McGeddon (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If books are fine as sources, then why can we not have the list of previous record times (which used to constitute a major part of this page) back into this wikipedia article? Chase Ladies! kept taking it down as 'unreferenced' ... Yet the list of times were researched by Jack Welsby (a former record holder), who went to the British Library, and painstakingly trawled through every old edition of the Guinness Book of Records, making a note of all the times. He then supplied the times to me (also a former holder of this record) which I published on my own personal website, and the creator of this page in WikiPedia then took the times from that page. Discuss... thx. --Geofftech (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Geoff, do you have the detailed references (page and year) for each of the historic records? If so, then those entries would all be supported by citations of published references. --Jbom1 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at an old version of the page, it explicitly stated that only the 2009 record was taken from the Guinness Book of Records ("Time in bold represents current official Guinness World Record" and only one time is bolded). There wasn't any indication that the older records were taken from there, so clearly something's been lost along the way. Feel free to re-add any records which appeared in the GBR - the year alone is enough, you don't need to drag out the page numbers again. --McGeddon (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually buying the 1993 Guinness Book of Records on page 125 the written text is this

TRAVELLING The record for touring the 272 stations of the London Underground,including Heathrow Terminal 4 station which opened on 12 Apr 1986, is 18 hr 41 min 41 sec set by a team of five:Robert A.Robinson, Peter D. Robinson, Timothy J. Robinson, Timothy J. Clark and Richard J. Harris, on 30 Jul 1986.Hobnobbiscuits (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Added, and sourced :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are happy if we find more resources from the Guinness book of records we can add them and can someone please see if my link to MR JAMES 1st record works it is important to him to have that record on file.Hobnobbiscuits (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite being a different class attempt where private transport was used 1977 Guinness Book of Records states this The record for touring the then 277 stations was 15hours precisely by Leslie R. V. Burwood on 3 Sept. 1968.Hobnobbiscuits (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Andi James records

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Just to give an overview of what seems to be happening with the article at the moment, as it's been largely lost among IP talk pages, and messages which have been procedurally blanked for containing legal threats and which weren't very clear in the first place. So far as I can tell, the story is that Andi James and Steve Wilson set a 15h45m38s record in May this year, but this was apparently unrecognised by Guinness as Guinness had changed their rules for the challenge at some point. An IP has claimed that the record is "currently in arbitration" with Guinness. It's unclear whether the record got any coverage in secondary sources, but none have been offered.

Somebody claiming to be Andi James has asked that this record be included in the article anyway, despite having no source. Including unsourced material is against Wikipedia policy. In response, this user has argued that if the new record cannot be included, James will not allow Wikipedia to include his (sourced) 2009 world record either. (User:Palkanetoijala made similar arguments in back in 2010, responding to a different content dispute with the ultimatum that "if the history of the challenge gets deleted again i will remove my current record from this site".) It looks like every such request has been couched as an aggressive legal threat, so nobody's ever had the chance to respond to it.

It's not clear if Palkanetoijala and the recent IP addresses represent Andi James, or a rival pretending to be James and attempting to goad Wikipedia editors into removing James's 2009 record from the article, but the idea that a world record holder has the "rights" to the fact of that record, and can use it as a bargaining chip to overrule Wikipedia policies on other content, is flatly incorrect. If a world record is mentioned in the Guinness Book of Records and many newspaper sources, Wikipedia can quote that. James is not the WP:OWNER of sentences in Wikipedia that mention his name.

All we need here is a reliable source that mentions the May 2015 record. If Guinness have changed their rules this year, it'd also be good to put that into the article as a context for any future shift in the record times, if there's a source that covers this.

(If User:Palkanetoijala is open to discussing any of this, they should log in under that username and do so at User talk:Palkanetoijala, or request an unblock of that primary account and join the discussion here. Note that unregistered editors are temporarily blocked from editing this talk page, at the moment, as a result of the continued legal threats that were being made on this page.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't find anything either, not even in the German press… —Sladen (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In a discussion with one of the editors I have agreed to allow my records on this page but with different references as they were incorrect scources so I had every right to keep removing my name from incorrect scources. Wikipedia have been gracious in that to change what I demanded but I think an apology from Wikipedia to myself should also be made publically I was right to remove my name from scources that were wrong so this is a lesson Wikipedia should learn u r not always right!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.166.80 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No, subjects of articles do not have the right to remove their name from articles. They are free to request the changes to the articles, but they need to show that the cited sources are inaccurate or provide better, more-reliable sources to trump the current ones. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That other editor was me, through private email. I've now attached a BBC source to confirm the 2011 world record, as the editor in question was concerned that the Telegraph article alone was unreliable. That Telegraph article is now only being used as a single source for the existence of the Mark Wallinger labyrinth artworks. --McGeddon (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

mr c fred my point in this whole matter is if Wikipedia had actually checked their scources in the first place then u would not have had a problem I have every right and so should other individuals that are published in Wikipedia should have every right to change their name from incorrect scources. If Wikipedia own people do not check scources before publishing then we have to correct them! Wikipedia is not always right in this case I was correct to remove my name from scources all people have a right to anonymity if they should so wish as well this is not a crusade against Wikipedia I have already suggested this (odwpw) owner doesn't wish publish Wikipedia. I am right in the fact that Wikipedia should apologise for the mess that they cause instead they procrastinate like most politicians do from just eating humble pie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.166.80 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 October 2015‎

INTERESTING TO NOTE STILL NO FORMAL APOLOGY FROM WIKIPEDIA IF THE CURRENT RECORD IS RATIFIED BY GUINNESS I WILL NOT ALLOW IT ON THIS PAGE UNTIL APOLOGY HAS BEEN MADE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.142 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello 194.176.105.142 and/or Andi James. Please try to get some citable coverage, either Guinness, or a local-paper (in English, or German, or anything). —Sladen (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

He's actually saying that if a reliable press source existed in the future, he wouldn't let Wikipedia quote it. As discussed before, though, although Wikipedia takes BLP accuracy very seriously and will act quickly on people reporting errors in articles about them, it doesn't allow otherwise accurate article content to be vetted by its subjects. If James is happy for his record to be covered by the Guinness Book of Records or the press, Wikipedia is free to quote those as sources.

(I'm not sure what James is asking for a "formal apology" for, but I don't see that anyone here is in a position to provide one - we're all just casual WP:VOLUNTEERs.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely there is someone one higher up than casual volunteer wikipedia editors there must be u accept donations so u must also be accountable for mistakes that u make im just saying that wikipedia made a mistake and must apologise for it its what is right after all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.30.69 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 November 2015‎

Wikipedia:Contact us. I'll box this thread given that User:Palaknetoijala is technically evading a block by posting here at all. --McGeddon (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.